RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2761, 22 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Case. Barnett and Levein v. Simpson. L 67 8s 9d. 'ibis action was brought to recover the amount of a dishonored acceptance. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Barton v. Jas. Pope.—L4 ss. This was a claim for professional charges, on account of which LI had been paid. The plaintiff was retained to conduct a case in the Magistrates Court, which was settled by the parties to the suit out of Court. The defendant said that as the plaintiff did not do the work he was npt entitled to the amount agreed upon. He also said that in arranging the matter on the other side he had left two guineas for Mr Barton with Hr M'Keay, Judgment postponed.

Wallace v. Shaw. —L2O, This was a claim for damages for cattle trespass. Mr Harris for the plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defence. The plaintiff said he had a quantity of land under crop, and on Sunday, December 3rd, he saw four of defendant’s cattle in the oats, at least they bore his brand and were fetched away by him. From the appearance of the oats the cattle appear to have been on the land all night. A fence also was broken chivm that cost Ll3O a year ago. In crossexamination by Mr Stout, the plaintiff said he did not consider a heifer a cow : he should not consider a beast a cow until she had had a calf. The sou of the plaintiff said he had been sent to tell the defendant about the cattle, and on a previous occasion ho had done the same when he hunted him away with a stick. Witnesses were called, who gave evidence that spme very “lightable” language passed between defendantand plaintiff about the cattle. George Forrest, who was engaged “knocking about doing anything, aud had been for thirty years,” when he went over the crop, “seed there had been a good deal of cattle overit.” There appeared to be five or six pounds damage done to the crops. This was confirmed by Alexander Fraser. For the defence, Mr Stout said there was no proof of ownership of the cattle ; that they belonged to defendant’s sou; that the plaintiff was a stonemason by trade, and that the defendant had been sued iu revenge for having been a witness against the plaintiff on a former occasion. The defendant was called, who said his son leased the land of him, paid him for his board and lodging, and that the cattle belonged to him. There was no deed of lease between them, nothing but “a hand o’ right.” Two of the defendant’s sous were called in corroboration of those statements. His Worship considered from the evidence that the plaintiff had an interest in the cattle. Judgment for the plaintiff, and costs. Braid v. Warren.—L7. This was a claim for damage done to the fence, bush, and trees of the plaintiff, by having been burnt through the act of the defendant. One pound was paid into Court. M r Stewart for the plaintiff, and Mr Stout for the defen dant. The plaintiff, in his evidence, said about 20 cords of wood had been burnt and 5 chains of log fencing. The fence would be worth about three pounds, and the firewood at 4s a cord. After much evideuce on both sides, judgment was given for the plaintiff, L 4 and costs. JUDGMENT. Sidey v. Gardner and others.—His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : —After giving every consideration to this matter, I have come to the conclusion that section 139 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1867, relied on by Mr Stout, does not apply to such a case as the one under consideration, but that it only applies to a case iu which the baukiupt is sole lessee. If the Legislature had intended to include the cases of joint tenants or tenants in common within tho provisions of section 139, apt words would doubtless have been used to give effect to such intention. In the absence of any express provision releasing the bankrupt from his liability under this lease, 1 hold that, notwithstanding his order of discharge, he still continues as liable for payment of the rest as if he had never been adjudicated a bankrupt,'and tbs liability of the defendant Jane Collins is in no wRy affected by th* bankruptcy, nor would it in my opinion nave been so even had Gardner been released b y his order of discharge. (Vide section I*2B, Bankruptcy Act, 1867 ) Had I* considered that scotiou 139 of tho Bankruptcy Act, IBG7, had vested the interest of Gardner in the plaintiff, I would have hesitated to have adjudicated in the case at all, because a question of title to land would then clearly have been raised, and my jurisdiction would have been ousted. I may say that the caso is beset with difficulties, and I give my decision with considerable diffidence. Should the defendants desire to have it reviewed by the Supreme Court, X would have no hesita-

tion in giving leave to appeal. Judgment for the plaintiffs, Ll2 19s 3d, together with costs.